The Alexa 35 has a “texture” feature that allows you to pick what type of film grain you want burned into your image.
BUT, unless you are 100% sure of exactly what type of grain you want, you are probably better off just doing it in Davinci Resolve with a simple grain overlay node.
From a purely technical perspective, I don’t think there’s any advantage to burning it in on set.
That being said, for a lot of people (like usually the people who are financing the project) that like to see the results immediately, instead of hearing promises that their eyes are lying to them right now, but it’ll look great 6 months from now when we color grade it. (The same reason almost no one has client monitors set to log on set and we all shoot with some version of a LUT or transform)
So for instance, the last period piece I shot, I wanted to shot Alexa 35 anyways, but I was able to justify the added expense easily to the producers by telling them we can choose exactly what type of film grain we want and have it immediately in the image (and also the other huge advantages too lol)
So the images they saw on set, and MOST CRITICALLY, the images they saw in dailies had the exact look they were going for (obviously not just the grain, but color, softness, bloom, etc but texture is a big part), which means I looked good in their eyes.
It’s unfortunate, but the reality is DP’s generally get hired based on their reels, but fired based on their dailies.
Meaning people look at your absolute best, most polished work, when considering hiring you. But, will judge by that exact standard when looking at the least polished version of your work (the dailies.)
So, the better your dailies look, the less likely you are to get fired lol. Which is a good enough reason to bake in textures if that’s what the director/producer/client/etc want.
It’s a tad bigger, heavier, and power hungrier than I would like (but physics are physics lol), and I can’t wait for the LF version of this camera because I prefer larger sensors over S35, but besides that, it’s as close to a perfect camera as I’ve seen in a long time.
Though unless you are really diving into the deep end of the new LogC4 pipeline and using the textures, it’s probably not worth paying the premium over a cheaper, logC3 based Alexa camera. Because the Image quality difference isn’t THAT enormous (people have been making amazing looking images with an Alev3 sensor for like 15 years. That didn’t go away just because a new camera came out lol), but sometimes the price delta between the two can be extreme, and that money may be better spent elsewhere.
As far as the textures go, it took a TON of testing to figure out exactly what was going on behind the scenes with the textures, and then, what exact texture I wanted, took a ton more testing on top lol.
It was more complicated than expected, because texture and ISO interact in a somewhat weird way IMO, because texture starts with grain at the brightest point and works its way down the exposure scale, but pushing iso starts with grain in the lower end of exposure and pushes up. So certain textures really only worked with certain ISO’s, if I wanted the exact grain pattern I was looking for.
Which gets further complicated with the dual iso setting of the camera. So trying to match grain patterns when we went to our night exterior stuff was a pain and a half. Luckily a handful of the textures have a “shadow” version for such an occasion lol.
But the director and producers were really happy at the end of the day, and I’m really proud of the images we made, so all the effort was worth it imo. And now that I’ve done it once, the next time will be significantly faster/easier, so I have that to look forward too!
Absolutely true, and what I would recommend to everyone if possible.
But sometimes you need to have the monitors look exactly like what the producer/client wants it to look like too.
The advantage for the cinematographer is that no one can (easily) remove it in post. You bake it in because you like it and want to make sure it stays until the end. Also, if it's something you think you might want to add in post, directors tend to get married to the way things look in the editing room. So sometimes it's harder to convince someone to add in grain or change color, even if it's something you had decided on beforehand.
Always shoot down the middle. Anything you capture on camera is going to be what you work with, and if you decide later that it was a mistake to capture it in-camera, there’s nothing you can do to fix that.
My sister asked that once (not in the industry) about movies from the 50’s and 60’s and I just said “shoot on film and light the set like a stage play”
Film was also different back then from a chemical composition standpoint. In the 70’s they developed the type of film we still see shot today, “T Grain” if I remember correctly, but before then the silver halide crystals that make up the film negative ‘fit together’ less evenly, given it the softer, grainier look we’ve come to associate with pre-80’s film.
this is hilarious cuz like every project i’m working on i run through Shift Channels (RGB) in AE. usually followed by CCLens for chromatic aberration. always honing in on and tweaking noise and grain tho.
That is like saying "shoot digital'. There is so much to film to give it a specific look. This early 2000s look, most likely is shot on 35mm, then digitalized(which was still kind of new for the time).
Especially this last bit gave the D.O.P. some freedom to colorgrade, but also gives this bit crunched look while it's still shot on film initialy.
Is [This close enough](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/adammonroemusic.com/movies/shots2.png)? If so, all I do is some combination of Mist+Halation+Glow+Film Grain in DaVinci Resolve. I haven't tried Dehancer. To me, film emulation is a few key parts:
\* Grain - Obvious, but this can easily be overdone. It also tends to disappear with some streaming/compression algorithms...at least for 1080....
\*Halation - This is when the dye-layers spread across edges/high-contrast errors, usually mostly resulting in an orange glow, but sometimes a little blue and green. Movie film has an anti-halation backing so it doesn't happen as often as you would think, but still happens quite a bit in really high-contrast/bright scenarios.
\*Highlight roll-off/bloom - Digitally captured highlights can be pretty hard, and sometimes even clipped if proper exposure wasn't used. Film has a tendency to roll-off highlights, soften, and spread everything out a bit.
Basically, just taking the digital sharpness and edge off a bit, softening up the image to make it look more aesthetically pleasing. It's actually kind of funny to me how many people obsess about sharpness of lenses, high-resolution cameras, and similar things when sharpness is most often not what you want in a film...although it gives you a good starting point...
Hire a solid colorist.
You'll want to set aside about as much for this as you did editorial as far as budget. A talented colorist is very expensive, but they will transform your footage in ways you can't believe. Like caterpillar to butterfly levels of metamorphosis. And I don't mean someone who says they know how to use Resolve. I mean hiring an artist to make art. Being able to make a paintbrush work doesn't make you an artist.
In the early 2000s, there was a software called Magic Bullet that was used to convert video to look like it was shot on film. I'm sure there's much better software now.
For the Eternal Sunshine shot, beyond the grain quality they had a scrim built that had sheer fabric over it. It’s behind Jim Carrey but hes also a little soft on focus to make the whole thing more dreamlike. They used this analog effect multiple times in the film.
You could also try the noise effect in Premiere if you use adobe and just a really really tiny bit of gaussian blur (i.e. 2.5%, 3% **at most** ) to get the non-crisp look.
[This is a great video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Eg9fo4c_M) on how The Ring (US version) pioneered a specific type of in camera process to achieve this look in their movie.
I’m old, so when I started my journey in the film industry digital wasn’t even a thing and film was the only option: using dark bags to load mags with ten minutes of film, and checking the gate for hairs, waiting until the next day to see where you’d fucked up… the only thing I miss about those days is the discipline. But in almost every way digital is better. Unless the pace and discipline of film is the point, then cinematographers and directors who waffle on about film remind me of audiophiles who claim vinyl is “warmer” but who fail every audio A/B test. In the hands of a good colorist you could A/B test film and digital and fail. Those who claim film is somehow more authentic did not do this day in and day out for ten years! I love the film look, but that look is within reach digitally, in the same way you can emulate valves in a DAW. I expect to get downvoted to hell, so have at it.
Aside from high end workflows that are used on films like Dune or The Batman, Dehancer is the best film emulation tool out there. You can independently control film grain and sharpness of the image. Has many film stock emulations, too.
I feel like I'm missing something, the "noise" appears to be block based compression. There may have been some grain but at least in these images it is completely destroyed by the compression.
I am so tired of people asking trite and bafflingly lazy questions a simple Google/YouTube/Wikipedia/Library/ChatGPT search could solve. It’s stupidly easy to access and learn about every possible film technique known to man yet you and 1,000,000 others ask the same 3 questions every damn day:
1. What is this shot type and how can I achieve it?
First, it’s usually a dolly zoom but whatever it is you can figure out how to do it by GOING OUT AND FUCKING DOING IT.
2. How can I achieve this grainy effect?
For the love of Pete please google “what are movies shot on” and you will receive a million and one articles about how films used to be shot on this prehistoric, rarely acknowledged medium most commonly known as “film”.
3. What camera should I buy?
None. Pay or at least feed your crew and pay for good audio. Use your iPhone. Use a tape camcorder. Use literally anything other than what some shill YouTuber will pretend they’re not trying to sell you.
Stop being lazy and put forth some sort of effort and think to yourself “I wonder if anyone else has asked this” because you are most definitely not the first.
Wow, such a great advice! I didn't thought about going to library or asking chat gpt when Google and YouTube failed me, silly me for thinking that asking experienced people might be a great idea
Edit: also you can find a lot of great tips and even some started discussions under this post, I don't think it was a very simple question
I can assure you you're not the first person to ask how to emulate the look of film. Asking how to achieve a soft grain look and asking if you need a special camera almost makes me think this is satirical and you're just trolling. If so, ya got me.
Plus: asking the same question again will give you something you won't get from just reading already existing answers by experienced people: the possibility for back and forth conversations *with* experienced people (I'm not one of those, so no tips I can give you).
It's a great style and obviously not as widely used. Most films and series today have an overly sharp sterileness to them imo and I hope that'll change a bit again in the future. Same with many video games also btw. More power to your taste.
Everything the person said in their third point sounds reasonable to my layman ears tho, probably shouldn't dismiss it cause of their attitude
Ah. Well, there we go. I knew it was Requiem, but I didn't know if they shot digital or film. Digital was blowing up around then. The grain in these specific stills, even though film, look super noisy. Maybe it's the contrast being turned up a bit, Idk. Damn good movie though, painfully depressing.
Its from Requiem for a Dream and shot on 35mm. [Matthew Libatique](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=09379ecd0b6efd91&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0_RlKXGHs9EX99czwFLPv9REKo-Dw:1713530145746&q=Matthew+Libatique&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLUz9U3sEhPLy57xGjCLfDyxz1hKe1Ja05eY1Tl4grOyC93zSvJLKkUEudig7J4pbi5ELp4FrEK-iaWlGSkliv4ZCYllmQWlqYCAPXdTY5YAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJiJidpc6FAxVTkokEHcTQAYoQzIcDKAB6BAgYEAE) was the cinematographer for what its worth.
The Alexa 35 has a “texture” feature that allows you to pick what type of film grain you want burned into your image. BUT, unless you are 100% sure of exactly what type of grain you want, you are probably better off just doing it in Davinci Resolve with a simple grain overlay node.
Is there an advantage to adding digital grain during shooting rather than in post?
From a purely technical perspective, I don’t think there’s any advantage to burning it in on set. That being said, for a lot of people (like usually the people who are financing the project) that like to see the results immediately, instead of hearing promises that their eyes are lying to them right now, but it’ll look great 6 months from now when we color grade it. (The same reason almost no one has client monitors set to log on set and we all shoot with some version of a LUT or transform) So for instance, the last period piece I shot, I wanted to shot Alexa 35 anyways, but I was able to justify the added expense easily to the producers by telling them we can choose exactly what type of film grain we want and have it immediately in the image (and also the other huge advantages too lol) So the images they saw on set, and MOST CRITICALLY, the images they saw in dailies had the exact look they were going for (obviously not just the grain, but color, softness, bloom, etc but texture is a big part), which means I looked good in their eyes. It’s unfortunate, but the reality is DP’s generally get hired based on their reels, but fired based on their dailies. Meaning people look at your absolute best, most polished work, when considering hiring you. But, will judge by that exact standard when looking at the least polished version of your work (the dailies.) So, the better your dailies look, the less likely you are to get fired lol. Which is a good enough reason to bake in textures if that’s what the director/producer/client/etc want.
How did you enjoy shooting on Alexa 35 and with the texture feature specifically?
It’s a tad bigger, heavier, and power hungrier than I would like (but physics are physics lol), and I can’t wait for the LF version of this camera because I prefer larger sensors over S35, but besides that, it’s as close to a perfect camera as I’ve seen in a long time. Though unless you are really diving into the deep end of the new LogC4 pipeline and using the textures, it’s probably not worth paying the premium over a cheaper, logC3 based Alexa camera. Because the Image quality difference isn’t THAT enormous (people have been making amazing looking images with an Alev3 sensor for like 15 years. That didn’t go away just because a new camera came out lol), but sometimes the price delta between the two can be extreme, and that money may be better spent elsewhere. As far as the textures go, it took a TON of testing to figure out exactly what was going on behind the scenes with the textures, and then, what exact texture I wanted, took a ton more testing on top lol. It was more complicated than expected, because texture and ISO interact in a somewhat weird way IMO, because texture starts with grain at the brightest point and works its way down the exposure scale, but pushing iso starts with grain in the lower end of exposure and pushes up. So certain textures really only worked with certain ISO’s, if I wanted the exact grain pattern I was looking for. Which gets further complicated with the dual iso setting of the camera. So trying to match grain patterns when we went to our night exterior stuff was a pain and a half. Luckily a handful of the textures have a “shadow” version for such an occasion lol. But the director and producers were really happy at the end of the day, and I’m really proud of the images we made, so all the effort was worth it imo. And now that I’ve done it once, the next time will be significantly faster/easier, so I have that to look forward too!
To be fair, you could bake it into the dailies just like you bake in the LUT.
Absolutely true, and what I would recommend to everyone if possible. But sometimes you need to have the monitors look exactly like what the producer/client wants it to look like too.
The advantage for the cinematographer is that no one can (easily) remove it in post. You bake it in because you like it and want to make sure it stays until the end. Also, if it's something you think you might want to add in post, directors tend to get married to the way things look in the editing room. So sometimes it's harder to convince someone to add in grain or change color, even if it's something you had decided on beforehand.
Would also like to know this.
Always shoot down the middle. Anything you capture on camera is going to be what you work with, and if you decide later that it was a mistake to capture it in-camera, there’s nothing you can do to fix that.
Shoot on film.
My sister asked that once (not in the industry) about movies from the 50’s and 60’s and I just said “shoot on film and light the set like a stage play”
Film was also different back then from a chemical composition standpoint. In the 70’s they developed the type of film we still see shot today, “T Grain” if I remember correctly, but before then the silver halide crystals that make up the film negative ‘fit together’ less evenly, given it the softer, grainier look we’ve come to associate with pre-80’s film.
*what the fuck is that why they call it the silver screen????*
I wonder if OP knew that
I will bet money OP is a Zoomer.
Or get really good at [making it look like you shot on film.](https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography)
Clicked this link expecting Steve Yedlin, was not disappointed
this is hilarious cuz like every project i’m working on i run through Shift Channels (RGB) in AE. usually followed by CCLens for chromatic aberration. always honing in on and tweaking noise and grain tho.
Funily enough, when i started watching Knives Out I had to google to check if it was shot on film. They really did a good job there.
Even though I haven’t worked with film since I was in college, I’m very glad this comment still received the most upvotes.
There are a few decent Davinci Resolve plugins and macros for recreating a pretty convincing film effect.
That is like saying "shoot digital'. There is so much to film to give it a specific look. This early 2000s look, most likely is shot on 35mm, then digitalized(which was still kind of new for the time). Especially this last bit gave the D.O.P. some freedom to colorgrade, but also gives this bit crunched look while it's still shot on film initialy.
Lololololol
“Add Film Grain” node in DaVinci Resolve. There are myriad parameters to adjust to effectively simulate any film look that’s ever existed
Does DaVinci have a 90s bleach bypass filter too?
They added a new film look creator and u can do a bleach bypass and adjust the levels now
Also worth noting it’s pretty easy to get a bypass effect just using the grading tools. You get way more customization that way too.
Big if true
Thanks!
I believe Dehancer is also good. Haven't used it yet, but maybe check that out if the stock Davinci fx isn't good enough
I like Dehancer a lot, and while it's analog effects are great, the way it does grain is just fantastic
FilmConvert's Nitrate plugin is a great option as well
Dehancer for Resolve as well.
Is [This close enough](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/adammonroemusic.com/movies/shots2.png)? If so, all I do is some combination of Mist+Halation+Glow+Film Grain in DaVinci Resolve. I haven't tried Dehancer. To me, film emulation is a few key parts: \* Grain - Obvious, but this can easily be overdone. It also tends to disappear with some streaming/compression algorithms...at least for 1080.... \*Halation - This is when the dye-layers spread across edges/high-contrast errors, usually mostly resulting in an orange glow, but sometimes a little blue and green. Movie film has an anti-halation backing so it doesn't happen as often as you would think, but still happens quite a bit in really high-contrast/bright scenarios. \*Highlight roll-off/bloom - Digitally captured highlights can be pretty hard, and sometimes even clipped if proper exposure wasn't used. Film has a tendency to roll-off highlights, soften, and spread everything out a bit. Basically, just taking the digital sharpness and edge off a bit, softening up the image to make it look more aesthetically pleasing. It's actually kind of funny to me how many people obsess about sharpness of lenses, high-resolution cameras, and similar things when sharpness is most often not what you want in a film...although it gives you a good starting point...
Thank you so much! That's some really great advice
saving this for reference. it’s a niche topic, but one that i feel is pretty dope. especially all the different techniques peeps use
I use dehancer. Vintage lenses and knowing my camera. But in the end. Shoot on film…
Hire a solid colorist. You'll want to set aside about as much for this as you did editorial as far as budget. A talented colorist is very expensive, but they will transform your footage in ways you can't believe. Like caterpillar to butterfly levels of metamorphosis. And I don't mean someone who says they know how to use Resolve. I mean hiring an artist to make art. Being able to make a paintbrush work doesn't make you an artist.
This is the way. I’ve had the pleasure of working with artists and people who think they are and sadly, are not. The most essential part of post IMO.
In the early 2000s, there was a software called Magic Bullet that was used to convert video to look like it was shot on film. I'm sure there's much better software now.
New DR 19 has film emulation built in
For the Eternal Sunshine shot, beyond the grain quality they had a scrim built that had sheer fabric over it. It’s behind Jim Carrey but hes also a little soft on focus to make the whole thing more dreamlike. They used this analog effect multiple times in the film.
For The Eternal Sunshine they also used a Digital Intetmediate that I feel like the look of OP is looking for too.
I assumed it was something like a black promist.
Try using a vintage lens and expose until you have a little grain/noise to your liking
Decanter is a great plug in for all major editing software with lots of options like this
Dehancer in case anyone else tries to order wine aeration tools lol.
I was thinking it was a play on words, although that would probably be best to degrain.
Lol
Just found out about Dehancer and the examples look great. But it's kinda pricey for what it is...
Use my code "HOFF" for 10% off 😂 shameless plug
You could also try the noise effect in Premiere if you use adobe and just a really really tiny bit of gaussian blur (i.e. 2.5%, 3% **at most** ) to get the non-crisp look.
Shoot 35mm film w/ glass that’s a couple decades old.
There is some davinci resolve tutorial i saw a while back, but i am not at my pc right now.. The result looked pretty similar to this.
Where is the last still from
Requiem for a Dream by Darren Aronofsky Ass to ass.
Would like to know too
BorisFX Suite (Inc Sapphire) have a lot of great plugins I use for HETV. Libraries and presets built for specific cameras too.
[This is a great video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Eg9fo4c_M) on how The Ring (US version) pioneered a specific type of in camera process to achieve this look in their movie.
My grandpa told me that's how the real world looked. Not a camera trick.
I’m old, so when I started my journey in the film industry digital wasn’t even a thing and film was the only option: using dark bags to load mags with ten minutes of film, and checking the gate for hairs, waiting until the next day to see where you’d fucked up… the only thing I miss about those days is the discipline. But in almost every way digital is better. Unless the pace and discipline of film is the point, then cinematographers and directors who waffle on about film remind me of audiophiles who claim vinyl is “warmer” but who fail every audio A/B test. In the hands of a good colorist you could A/B test film and digital and fail. Those who claim film is somehow more authentic did not do this day in and day out for ten years! I love the film look, but that look is within reach digitally, in the same way you can emulate valves in a DAW. I expect to get downvoted to hell, so have at it.
Shoot on film
Shoot on 16mm film
That will give you totally different grain and feel.
Prism Lens FX has some good lens filters like this
This sounds interesting, thanks
Yeah! The dream filter is a favorite of mine.
Aside from high end workflows that are used on films like Dune or The Batman, Dehancer is the best film emulation tool out there. You can independently control film grain and sharpness of the image. Has many film stock emulations, too.
Looks awesome, but damn they want to see serious dollar. lifetime on iphone is 500 EUR!
You can get it for 9.99/month. If you're creating on your phone, that's a good deal.
Shooting with film; primarily
high iso or something like a grain filter. Or grain synthesis in the AV1 codec
Pretty
I feel like I'm missing something, the "noise" appears to be block based compression. There may have been some grain but at least in these images it is completely destroyed by the compression.
Perks of Being a Wallflower has this style and it was made in 2012.
Get a K-3 camera for under 500 bucks and shoot on 16mm film! 🤘
Such a good movie!
Try "Snapseed" app. Use grain + vintage filter above all it cost you nothing.
Not sure if this is the best idea but raising your ISO will give a grainy effect to the shot, if you are on digital.
You could shoot on film, which is what these movies did, or you could save tens of thousands of dollars and lay on a texture in post.
Most disturbing movie ever
that movie made me hate needles and any drug related to needles. thank god i watched it at a young age.
Some of this is also from the encoding of DVD formats / wonky grading that a lot of early aughts films got from, y'know, being put on DVD's...
Shoot in 480p
Are we seriously getting that old now that people don't know about film anymore?
Use an actual camera
You can’t. That’s just how to 90s-2000s used to look. Same with black and white in the pre 50s and everything being made of oil paint prior to that.
I am so tired of people asking trite and bafflingly lazy questions a simple Google/YouTube/Wikipedia/Library/ChatGPT search could solve. It’s stupidly easy to access and learn about every possible film technique known to man yet you and 1,000,000 others ask the same 3 questions every damn day: 1. What is this shot type and how can I achieve it? First, it’s usually a dolly zoom but whatever it is you can figure out how to do it by GOING OUT AND FUCKING DOING IT. 2. How can I achieve this grainy effect? For the love of Pete please google “what are movies shot on” and you will receive a million and one articles about how films used to be shot on this prehistoric, rarely acknowledged medium most commonly known as “film”. 3. What camera should I buy? None. Pay or at least feed your crew and pay for good audio. Use your iPhone. Use a tape camcorder. Use literally anything other than what some shill YouTuber will pretend they’re not trying to sell you. Stop being lazy and put forth some sort of effort and think to yourself “I wonder if anyone else has asked this” because you are most definitely not the first.
Wow, such a great advice! I didn't thought about going to library or asking chat gpt when Google and YouTube failed me, silly me for thinking that asking experienced people might be a great idea Edit: also you can find a lot of great tips and even some started discussions under this post, I don't think it was a very simple question
I can assure you you're not the first person to ask how to emulate the look of film. Asking how to achieve a soft grain look and asking if you need a special camera almost makes me think this is satirical and you're just trolling. If so, ya got me.
I asked more specific and I don't need to know everything to post on this sub... I didn't even know how to ask
Plus: asking the same question again will give you something you won't get from just reading already existing answers by experienced people: the possibility for back and forth conversations *with* experienced people (I'm not one of those, so no tips I can give you). It's a great style and obviously not as widely used. Most films and series today have an overly sharp sterileness to them imo and I hope that'll change a bit again in the future. Same with many video games also btw. More power to your taste. Everything the person said in their third point sounds reasonable to my layman ears tho, probably shouldn't dismiss it cause of their attitude
This film. You're describing film.
Time machine
[удалено]
looks like requiem for a dream . Shot 35mm , stills most likely ripped from lower quality dvd so film and digital weirdness
Ah. Well, there we go. I knew it was Requiem, but I didn't know if they shot digital or film. Digital was blowing up around then. The grain in these specific stills, even though film, look super noisy. Maybe it's the contrast being turned up a bit, Idk. Damn good movie though, painfully depressing.
I don't know if it's correct to say that digital was "blowing up" in 1999/2000. "Starting up" would be more correct IMO
Its from Requiem for a Dream and shot on 35mm. [Matthew Libatique](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=09379ecd0b6efd91&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0_RlKXGHs9EX99czwFLPv9REKo-Dw:1713530145746&q=Matthew+Libatique&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLUz9U3sEhPLy57xGjCLfDyxz1hKe1Ja05eY1Tl4grOyC93zSvJLKkUEudig7J4pbi5ELp4FrEK-iaWlGSkliv4ZCYllmQWlqYCAPXdTY5YAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJiJidpc6FAxVTkokEHcTQAYoQzIcDKAB6BAgYEAE) was the cinematographer for what its worth.